Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.Yajjana Veeramma vs Dodda Venkateswara Rao on 25 January, 2022
Author: M. Venkata Ramana
Bench: M. Venkata Ramana
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
S.A.No.30 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The defendant is the appellant. The respondent laid the suit for recovery of Rs.2,00,300/- basing on a promissory note dated 15.08.2014 said to have had been executed by the appellant in his favour agreeing to repay with interest @ 24% P.A.
3. Stating that the appellant did not repay the amount in spite of repeated demands and after issuance of legal notice, the respondent instituted suit against the appellant.
4. The substantial defence of the appellant at the trial was one of denial of execution of the suit promissory note, calling it a forgery. She further contended that there was a money transaction between her husband and the respondent when he had borrowed Rs.50,000/-, on which occasion, the respondent had obtained two blank promissory notes, which were made use of in fabricating the suit promissory note. A reference is also made to the exchange of notices made between these parties in their defence.
5. Issues were settled by the trial court basing on the pleadings and the parties went to trial where evidence was let-in.
6. On the material and evidence, the trial court accepting the version of the respondent, decreed the suit as prayed. Pertinent to note that the respondent claimed interest @ 24% P.A., throughout.
7. The appellant was not successful in the appeal and the appellant court had confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court, upon reappraisal of the material and evidence. 2
8. These are the circumstances under which the Second Appeal is preferred.
9. In as much as the entire claim of the appellant is based on fact situation, it is now felt desirable to dispose of the Second Appeal at the state of admission stage finding that there are no substantial questions of law.
10. Ex.A-1 is the suit promissory note, on which, the claim of the respondent rests. In proof of it, the respondent deposed while also relying on the testimony of P.W.2, one of its attesters. Demand was made prior to the institution of suit, as seen from Ex.A-2 to A-8.
11. The contention of the appellant that she had no necessity to borrow from the respondent and by the date of Ex.A.1, that she was working in West Godavari District on being transferred from East Godavari District and further that, her husband had money transaction with the respondent, who had taken two (02) blank promissory notes from her husband, that were made use of to fabricate Ex.A.1. There is only interested testimony of D.W.1 and D.W.2 in support of the defence as against the consistent evidence brought out by the respondent through P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the trial.
12. The Courts below considered the nature of defence and one of the specific findings of the trial court is that there was possibility for the appellant to visit the place of the respondent and to borrow, even though she was working in East Godavari District by then. This finding is based on the fact and also probability. In as much as, there were transactions between husband of the appellant and respondent earlier, the finding recorded by the trial court, on probabilities is justified.
13. In the course of hearing, Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant contended that a petition was filed under 3 Section 45 of the Evidence Act before the trial court to subject Ex.A.1 for examination by a hand writing expert and it was dismissed, which order was confirmed in the revision by this court. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant tried to substantiate her defence with reference to the material on record.
14. However, finding the nature of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, which is no way dislodged by the defence so set up by the appellant, the contentions so advanced on behalf of the appellant are difficult to accept.
15, Both the courts below consistently recorded the findings in favour of the respondent, upon appreciation of facts. In the presence of the concurrent findings on facts, it is difficult to hold that Section 100 of C.P.C., attracted as such to this case.
16. However, disturbing feature in the claim of the respondent is usurious rate of interest claimed by him at 24% under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. On the face of it, it is unconscionable. When it is so, the court is duty bound to consider such question and even though the appellant did not raise such defence questioning the nature of this transaction.
17. Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act requires the Court in the circumstances to interfere with the original transaction itself. For this purpose, it is not necessary that a specific defence plea is set up and the respondent had preferred such claim with eyes wide open knowing well that the rate of interest claimed under Ex.A.1 is on high side, being exorbitant. These circumstances are sufficient for this court to interfere and reopen the suit transaction from the stage of original cause of action namely borrowing amount under Ex.A.1. 4
18. Both the courts failed to note this infraction of law and hence, this Court has to interfere. If the interest is scaled down to 12% P.A., in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and appropriate.
19. Therefore, disagreeing with the contention of the appellant, scaling down the rate of interest to 12% P.A., from the date of original transaction, the Second Appeal is disposed of subject to the following directions:
1. The suit is decreed and that the respondent is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 12% P.A., thereon from 15.08.2014 till 31.05.2017 and that 12% P.A., on Rs.1,50,000/- from 01.06.2017 (date of filing the suit) till 09.04.2019 against the appellant.
2. That the respondent is entitled for further interest on Rs.1,50,000/- from 10.04.2019 (date of decree of trial court) @ 6% P.A., till realization.
3. That the respondent is entitled for proportionate costs throughout payable by the appellant, who shall bear his own costs.
4. The remaining claim of the respondent is dismissed.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J Date : 25.01.2022 Ks 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA S.A.No.30 of 2022 Date : 25.01.2022 Ks